DVD Forum Decisions on HD-DVD

[bond]

The DVD Forum has held its 26th Steering Committee Meeting on Jun. 9/10, 2004 and made the following decisions:

1) HD DVD-ROM Physical Specifications ver.1.0 approved, which means Sony's BluRay stays out once again

2) Motion to retain the provisional approval of the CODECs until the level of information concerning the licensing terms for VC-9 is the same as the level of information concerning the licensing terms for AVC/H.264 not approved, which means ... well i am not sure :D

the decision in the last meeting was approving "Provisional approval of MPEG2, WM9 (VC-9) and MPEG4 AVC(H.264) Video CODECs as mandatory for the HD DVD Video specification for playback devices, subject to (a) an update in 60 days regarding licensing terms and conditions, (b) a presentation by each of the respective licensing bodies at the next SC meeting and (c) possible elimination of any of the above CODECs at the next SC meeting."

now if the retain of the original provisional approval was not approved, this might mean that there are interests that one codec will be removed!? and if they dont really know the licensing terms for vc-9 and knowing that vc-9 is not accepted as an open standard by the smpte till now, this doesnt really speak for vc-9 i think.
but still there was no decision to actually remove a codec, so it could also mean that simply the old decision (h.264/vc-9/mpeg-2 are all in) stays valid... any other opinions on that?

3) Audio Codec (HE-AAC) for the mandatory audio codec of DVD-Audio ROM-Zone approved, a decision which was not approved last time afaik
which means i think, that the chance is high, that upcoming hd-dvd players, will have to support he-aac (and therefore lc-aac too of course :D )


read the decisions yourself here:
26th Steering Committee Meeting, (Jun. 9/10, 2004) (http://www.dvdforum.org/26scmtg-resolution.htm)
25th Steering Committee meeting, (Feb. 24/25, 2004) (http://www.dvdforum.org/25scmtg-resolution.htm)

[Wilbert]

2) Motion to retain the provisional approval of the CODECs until the level of information concerning the licensing terms for VC-9 is the same as the level of information concerning the licensing terms for AVC/H.264 not approved, which means ... well i am not sure
I think it means the following. In the 25th steering committee:

"Provisional approval of MPEG2, WM9 (VC-9) and MPEG4 AVC(H.264) Video CODECs as mandatory for the HD DVD Video specification for playback devices, subject to (a) an update in 60 days regarding licensing terms and conditions, (b) a presentation by each of the respective licensing bodies at the next SC meeting and (c) possible elimination of any of the above CODECs at the next SC meeting."

Apperently the licensing terms and conditions were not clear at that time, that's why the provisional approval subject to the three demands.

I don't know whether those demands are met, but apperently the majority of the committee didn't think so. Because in the 26th steering committee they say

"Motion to retain the provisional approval of the CODECs until the level of information concerning the licensing terms for VC-9 is the same as the level of information concerning the licensing terms for AVC/H.264."

Thus, the motion to retain the provisional approval (iow turning the provisional approval into a definite approval) is not approved.

As you concluded, apperently they aren't satisfied with the availabie information about the licensing terms of VC-9.

now if the retain of the original provisional approval was not approved, this might mean that there are interests that one codec will be removed!?

Not necessarily. At least, they don't say that in the two links.

but still there was no decision to actually remove a codec, so it could also mean that simply the old decision (h.264/vc-9/mpeg-2 are all in) stays valid... any other opinions on that?
Yup.

[malkion]

we all know business, since hd-dvd's are backwards compatible with current dvd's that's the next format that should be approved, even if sony has a better solution (plus they have more companies as partners).

since japan's hdtv format uses aac, as compared to euro and united states ac3, for audio support, it's not surprising that aac will be recognized as an offical audio format.

i think hd-dvd will be the next format...

2 cents.

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by malkion
since japan's hdtv format uses aac, as compared to euro and united states ac3, for audio support, it's not surprising that aac will be recognized as an offical audio format.


There is currently no such thing as European HD standard. EBU/DVB is waiting for h.264 so it would be possible to keep the number of channels at current levels. For digital broadcast layer 2 audio is used currently except in some movies which are broadcasted in multichannel ac-3.

Ps. WMV9 licensing terms unclear? I don't think so. Fess etc: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx

[Wilbert]

Thus, the motion to retain the provisional approval (iow turning the provisional approval into a definite approval) is not approved.
On a second thought, I'm confused here. What does retain mean? According to my dictionary it means something like "maintain", but it also means "hold back" or "detain" (the opposite?). If it is the former meaning, then I have no idea how to interpret the statement.

[bond]

the dvd forum decided against keeping the provisional approval to use mpeg-2/h.264/vc-9

so there are two possibilities:
1) the codecs are in, as only the decision to keep them was not approved, which doesnt mean automatically that there was an approval to not use them (a laywer will see the difference :D ). so the decision from the prior meeting stays valid
2) the prior decision is not valid anymore (as it was subject to (a)(b)(c), which did not happen) and the dvd forum themselves simply dont know now what codecs to use, as there was no decision which one to use finally :D

for me 2) is more valid, as if the provisional approval of the first meeting would stay valid anyways, there wouldnt have been the need to decide whether to keep the provisional approval

making it short: everything is open again

[keel]

Originally posted by Latexxx
Ps. WMV9 licensing terms unclear? I don't think so. Fess etc: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx

Actually, the above only refers to the cost of using Microsoft's own pantents. Somewhere in the fine print, MS is absolved of having to absorb the potential charges of other patent holders, the end user has to pay them. Thus, as there may be other pantent holders, MS passed on the whole thing to MPEG-LA, this has the additional advantage of making MS seem more "open" to accepted standards bodies.

http://www.streamingmedia.com/press/view.asp?id=2565

As this process is not complete yet, no-one really knows how much it will cost to use VC9.

Frank

[MfA]

The H.264 patent pools dont guarantuee that either (would be a little hard, seeing as there are 2 of them :)).

I doubt Microsoft was involved with the MPEG-LA's actions BTW.

[Sycho]

what audio codecs, DD+? MLP WMA9Pro? fuck dts don't need it

[bond]

Originally posted by sycho
what audio codecs, DD+? MLP WMA9Pro? fuck dts don't need it the biggest chances have DD+, DTS++, and MLP as mandatory audio codecs + a to be decided lossless codec
wma9 pro never was discussed to be used

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by sycho
what audio codecs, DD+? MLP WMA9Pro? fuck dts don't need it That a bit of a sweeping statement! You might not need it but I certainly prefer it over Dolby Digital, as it's currently able to offer more discret channels with a full frequency range!


Cheers

[keel]

Originally posted by MfA
The H.264 patent pools dont guarantuee that either (would be a little hard, seeing as there are 2 of them :)).

I doubt Microsoft was involved with the MPEG-LA's actions BTW.

There are two patent pools for now, unfortunately, but they both have set their final licensing terms:
Go to http://www.mpegla.com/ and click on "In the news" for those of MPEG LA
Go to http://www.vialicensing.com/news/via_pr_0404_AVCPatentTerms.html
and http://www.vialicensing.com/developments/avc/license.terms.html
for Via's

MPEG LA is not a Federal Government Agency, they just don't step in to regulate issues! They only get involved when someone requests their services. They are a private business whose goal "is to facilitate and offer non-exclusive independently administered licensing alternatives to those that exist in the current market for a variety of technologies that users may choose based on their own unique needs. Wherever a joint licensing alternative would be of convenience to users, MPEG LA is pleased to play its part in bringing together the essential patent holders in order to facilitate ist creation."

Microsoft knew it had a joint licensing/patent problem, so it asked them to get involved. MPEG LA just does not jump in on their own.

Frank

[keel]

There is the inconvienience of having to go to both Via and MPEG LA for licensing H.264/AVC/MPEG4 part 10. However, if you are a small user, there is no cost from either...

From Via:
What if I'm a small user (few units and/or little revenue)?
The program includes a Threshold Royalty Free Program for entities that distribute (sell or give away) up to 50,000 end user products, and generate less than $500,000 in revenue from distribution of those products combined with distribution of content subject to Replication Fees. There is no initial fee for this license and there are greatly reduced reporting requirements (only an annual statement confirming compliance with the limits).

From MPEG LA

Decoder-Encoder Manufacturer Sublicenses

1. AVC products sold by a legal entity to end users and as branded OEM for PC but not sold as part of a PC Operating System (decoder, encoder or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = “unit”)
0 - 100,000 units/year = no royalty (available to one legal entity in an affiliated group)

2. Legal entity selling branded AVC products OEM for PC OS may pay for its customers as follows:
0 - 100,000 units/year = no royalty (available to one legal entity in an affiliated group)

3. Free Internet Broadcast (not title-by-title, not subscription) – no royalty during first term (through 2010), and royalty thereafter shall not exceed the Free Television AVC Video fees for the period after 2010.

Frank

[Rash]

So, all that means MPEG2, AVC and VC-9 are still "being considered" to become mandatory for HD-DVD, right?

Isn't that too much codec? I mean, wouldn't it be better (and cheaper) to have to licence only one codec for the players, like DVD?

[keel]

Originally posted by Rash
So, all that means MPEG2, AVC and VC-9 are still "being considered" to become mandatory for HD-DVD, right?

Isn't that too much codec? I mean, wouldn't it be better (and cheaper) to have to licence only one codec for the players, like DVD?

Ok, here are two more interpretations:

http://www.eet.com/sys/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22100666
http://news.com.com/Next-generation+DVD+moves+ahead/2100-1040_3-5233211.html?tag=nefd.top
(copy and paste the above url if it wraps)

Sounds like all three codecs got into the version 1 standard. You are right, it puts a real burden on HD-DVD creators to put the same material encoded in three different codecs on the same DVD. Does not make much sense...it will be good for the compressionists though! Crank up those compression farms.

It will be interesting to see what the blue-ray camp will come up with.

Frank

[Rash]

Oh, oh wait. That's something new to me. The way it is now means a film on HD-DVD have to feature a video stream encoded on the three standards at the same time!?? That doesn't sound right to me. Why waste this space?

I think that obviously won't be the final thing, right?

[Doom9]

@keel: you misread those articles. Players must be able to handle all 3 formats (if they have been approved).. discs can use either of the three formats. It will be interesting to see if there'll be the same problems producing dual layer discs as there were with DVDs.. if there are, 15 GB is not too much for HD content, so that might result in MPEG-2 not playing a major role as codec for HD DVDs.

[keel]

Thanks for the clarification, that makes more sense...your really have to read some of these things very carefully, and I obviously did not.

It seems that a lot of stuff is still up in the air.

Frank

[Wilbert]

the decision in the last meeting was approving "Provisional approval of MPEG2, WM9 (VC-9) and MPEG4 AVC(H.264) Video CODECs as mandatory for the HD DVD Video specification for playback devices
I was wondering about something when reading Slashdot this morning ("IT: Microsoft Longhorn To Support HD DVD Format"). Does it mean that movie studios can choose which codec they use for authoring their hd-dvd's? If so, does that mean that most of them will be WM9 with their drm crap on it?

[bond]

if longhorn supports hd-dvd, it will also have to support h.264 by default, as both wmv9 (not wma9 nor m$ drm) and h.264 will have to be supported by any hd-dvd player if i understand the current situation on the codecs used in hd-dvd right

[Wilbert]

Yes, I know. But, that doesn't means that there are two streams on a hd-dvd itself (one for wmv9 and one for h.264).

[bond]

hm i doubt it, as it would take far too much space

[Rash]

Maybe it is like the DD and DTS on DVDs right now. Studios can choose to put a DTS track or not (OK, I know the DD one must exist by default).

I just don't really see why the possibility of 3 codecs. It is 3 different decoding hardware for the player. It is going to be quite costy. :( Anyway, I believe when this is all set, studios will choose a format and release all its movies in that format.

[lexor]

hmm... I've been thinking about that sentance about "provisional status" and the more I think the more it looks like they have rejected either vc-9 or h.264. MPEG2 must remain for compatibility (since that's the argument behind HD-DVD vs Blue-ray, keep the as much of old as possible), and the statement seems to clearly imply that there is no more "provisional status" which means there is definitive choice that has already been made. From the fact that they say
Motion to retain the provisional approval of the CODECs until the level of information concerning the licensing terms for VC-9 is the same... not approved
seems to mean that "Desire to keep provisional approval of all CODECs until vc-9 licences clear up... denied", which seems to mean that vc-9 was holding all so they either dumped everything to keep vc-9 with the licence MS will soon deliver, or they dumped vc-9 and kept everything else.

since mpeg2 must stay by argument above, I think vc-9 was dumped.